Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: NY Times Magazine last Sunday.......  (Read 9721 times)
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 26, 2010, 01:26:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
PS: I see you deleted the 'coward' remark - good for you!

Yes. That was over the top. I don't normally deal in unsupported assertions, and that was one. My apologies to anyone who isn''t a coward. But you'll notice that that's all I deleted.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 26, 2010, 01:32:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
(edited to be less obnoxious)

Chuck, Thanks for making it less obnoxious. I always appreciate that.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7252


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 26, 2010, 01:35:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I find the images moving. I'd suggest that we keep in mind for each man or woman killed in action we have perhaps seventeen wounded, having scars and suffering for life.

This is essentially the price of the business. Is it worth the sacrifice? I hope is it, but I'm far from sure. Don't forget that the civilians also pay a price, probably higher than the men and women in uniform.

War is a serious business, should be the absolutely last resort.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: PeterAM
This is a link to an article/photos in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03...ml?ref=magazine. Very moving.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #43 on: March 26, 2010, 01:36:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Jeremy, You and I don't often disagree, but this is one time when we do. Why does seeing a picture of a series of bedrooms make you value and recognize their sacrifice more than you did before? Certainly you were aware that they had bedrooms. Surely you were aware that when they were little they had Pooh bears and other toys. Yes, it's terrible that people have to die in wars, and especially terrible because they're young and have full lives in front of them that get snuffed out. But I'd be willing to bet you're aware of that every day, and that you value that kind of sacrifice without seeing a series of bedrooms. The only possible use for this kind of propaganda is to: (1) Frighten people who've thought about military service, (2) Sadden and frighten the parents of people who are in military service, (3) Frighten the parents of people who are thinking about military service, and (4) Make it harder for the United States to fight the wars it needs to fight by emboldening the clueless people who don't understand that these things need to be done.
Hi Russ,
I often agree with you and have a great respect for your point of views and experience, and as I mentioned in a post above, for the style of your writing. But I also have to disagree with you here and join the Jeremy position.
I have a lot of respect for the military people, I learned about that when I spent some time in an air force base where all my prejudices falled apart.
I met here some of the greatest men (in a noble way), that carried the atomic bomb as their daily rutine.
Military service as been for me a great experience and I learned a lot about how things works.
But the time have changed very very fast, faster in some 20 years that in centuries. The reasons that drive you to your positions, and sorry if I over-simplify, are not as much valuable nowdays because one thing has changed: comunication. And comunication is of course exageration in that sense that it is now involved more an emotional factor and not as much a "citizen" as it has been the case.
In 14-18, it was possible for a government to send and sacrify millions people in the battle field, but that is simply not possible nowdays. Mentalities have fortunately changed, nobody would follow that, and the kind of comunication and values are different. I'm sure you won't recognize your army now from where you did left it some years ago.
Wars have changed, from the massive to something very similar to what Lawrence of Arabia was doing. Everything is different. the game is not played the same way.

Fred.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 01:58:52 PM by fredjeang » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 26, 2010, 01:44:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I find the images moving. I'd suggest that we keep in mind for each man or woman killed in action we have perhaps seventeen wounded, having scars and suffering for life.

Yes. Maybe the NYT could show the bedrooms of the wounded, perhaps with the wounded in them. What's your point, Erik? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't get wounded in war?

Quote
This is essentially the price of the business. Is it worth the sacrifice? I hope is it, but I'm far from sure. Don't forget that the civilians also pay a price, probably higher than the men and women in uniform.

Come again??

Quote
War is a serious business, should be the absolutely last resort.

Since WW II I'd say it always has been the last resort. But making war the last resort isn't the same thing as waiting until you've been attacked and mortally wounded. If you'd like a lesson on that subject read Churchill's WW II series.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 01:59:52 PM by RSL » Logged

ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 26, 2010, 01:50:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
Here's another ... I like your photographic work very much!

:-)

Appreciate that very much, thank you!
Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
ddk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 274


WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 26, 2010, 01:53:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Moonrise, Hernandez was just a pretty sunset photo, that's all.
Pepper #30 was just another overdone vegetable picture, that's all.
Karsh did simple headshots, that's all.
Dykinga won a Pulitzer for pictures of rocks and trees, that's all.

It's easy to dismiss the value of any photograph(er) if you don't actually make an attempt to understand.

I wasn't dismissing the work, just the message; still don't see out as photojournalism.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 01:55:55 PM by ddk » Logged

david
-----------------------
www.pbase.com/ddk
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #47 on: March 26, 2010, 01:58:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
But the time have changed very very fast, faster in some 20 years that in centuries. The reasons that drive you to your positions, and sorry if I over-simplify, are not as much valuable nowdays because one thing has changed: comunication. And comunication is of course exageration in that sense that it is involved a emotional factor and not a "citizen" factor.
In 14-18, it was possible for a government to send and sacrify millions people in the battle field, but that is simply not possible nowdays. Mentalities have fortunately changed, and the kind of comunication and values are different. I'm sure you won't recognize your army now from where you did left it some years ago.

Fred, Do you really believe that, say, the Chinese couldn't field the same kind of do-or-die army that Germany fielded in WW I? Dictatorships can do that because the dictators are the ones with the guns. Do you really believe that the people of Iran would continue to labor under the kind of oppression they labor under if they, instead of their dictators, had the guns? The kind of "mentalities" you're talking about never change. Prior to the beginning of WW II, British kids were swearing not to fight for king or country, but when they found that their country was about to be invaded by a madman they fought for king and country (and probably for mom, dad, and sister). The only reason you can believe what you claim to believe is that the threat seems distant. But the threat seemed distant to those British kids too -- only it wasn't.

I not only recognize the army now, I live in Colorado Springs where Fort Carson, The Air Force Academy, and NORAD all hang out. I have almost daily contact with military people.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #48 on: March 26, 2010, 02:03:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Fred, Do you really believe that, say, the Chinese couldn't field the same kind of do-or-die army that Germany fielded in WW I? Dictatorships can do that because the dictators are the ones with the guns. Do you really believe that the people of Iran would continue to labor under the kind of oppression they labor under if they, instead of their dictators, had the guns? The kind of "mentalities" you're talking about never change. Prior to the beginning of WW II, British kids were swearing not to fight for king or country, but when they found that their country was about to be invaded by a madman they fought for king and country (and probably for mom, dad, and sister). The only reason you can believe what you claim to believe is that the threat seems distant. But the threat seemed distant to those British kids too -- only it wasn't.

I not only recognize the army now, I live in Colorado Springs where Fort Carson, The Air Force Academy, and NORAD all hang out. I have almost daily contact with military people.
Now still yes, for the chinese. Let them taste the "joys" of confort, abundance and capitalism for a while and they won't.
Remember the Roman empire? It just happened that way.
After a great empire, starting decadence. When the Barbarians came, they were not preapared any more. They just did not want to.

Now you are right, I should have say "nobody would follow that" talking about our occidental nations, but for others, they would. Because they do not have yet the same level of confort. But for us, it is another story IMO.

Fred.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 02:12:14 PM by fredjeang » Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2010, 02:12:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
Moonrise, Hernandez was just a pretty sunset photo, that's all.
Pepper #30 was just another overdone vegetable picture, that's all.
Karsh did simple headshots, that's all.
Dykinga won a Pulitzer for pictures of rocks and trees, that's all.

Chuck, I let this one go by, but I shouldn't have.

If you saw Moonrise, Hernandez and knew nothing at all about Ansel or the story of how he made that shot, would it still be fine art to you?

If you saw Pepper #30 and didn't know anything about Edward or his mistresses, etc., would the pepper still be fine art?

How about karsh's portrait of Churchill. If you didn't know who Churchill was or anything about him, or that he'd just had a cigar in his mouth, would that portrait still be fine art?

I'm not all that thrilled with Jack Dykinga's work even if he won a Pulitzer. I think your "Unapologetic Landscapes" are better than anything of Dykinga's I've ever seen, so I'll let that one go.

As far as I'm concerned, all of the first three examples stand on their own feet as fine art. Knowing the stories behind them doesn't enhance my appreciation of them.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5536



WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 26, 2010, 02:16:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
... My apologies to anyone who isn''t a coward. But you'll notice that that's all I deleted.
Russ, I am so glad that you do not consider me a coward... only "disgusting"... phew, what a relief!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #51 on: March 26, 2010, 02:54:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Certainly you were aware that they had bedrooms. Surely you were aware that when they were little they had Pooh bears and other toys.

I'm afraid you've completely lost me on this one ...

A photograph has to show you something that you didn't know existed in order for it to be valid?

Of course I knew those things ... but I have never been privileged to see the bedroom of a fallen soldier ... and I'm glad the photographer did it and I'm glad the families allowed it and I think you should take a cue from them.

Obviously, the families felt this had value beyond propaganda ... let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #52 on: March 26, 2010, 03:25:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
I'm afraid you've completely lost me on this one ...

A photograph has to show you something that you didn't know existed in order for it to be valid?

Of course I knew those things ... but I have never been privileged to see the bedroom of a fallen soldier ... and I'm glad the photographer did it and I'm glad the families allowed it and I think you should take a cue from them.

Obviously, the families felt this had value beyond propaganda ... let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

Jeremy, Of course a photograph doesn't have to show something I didn't know existed, but if it shows me something I knew existed there has to be some reason for me to be interested in the photograph of that something. The fact is that dead kids' bedrooms look exactly like live kids' bedrooms and I'm not interested in kids' bedrooms, with our without their Pooh bears. I have four sons and I remember exactly what their bedrooms always looked like when they were kids. Neither would anyone else be interested in these bedrooms unless their noses were rubbed in the implications a quack "photojournalist" would have them accept along with his pictures.
 
I'll certainly give the families the benefit of any doubt, but I won't extend my excusal to the NYT. The fact that they did this is a deplorable abdication of the responsibilities that go with the rights of free journalism.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #53 on: March 26, 2010, 03:40:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually, I went back to the pictures and watch them again.
Well, I have to say that I'm in a more contrasted position, in between the Russ and Jeremy's ones.
I know it might sounds that being in the middle is being nowhere, but i actually find valuable arguments in both positions,
and I'm unable to define wich one is right in my opinion.
So, I apologyze to Russ for my previous post saying that his arguments where a kind of "out-dated".
They were not.
It is a difficult subject.

Fred.
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #54 on: March 26, 2010, 03:44:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
a quack "photojournalist" would have them accept along with his pictures.

He lived in Iraq from 2002-2008.  He doesn't seem like a quack at all.

http://www.ashleygilbertson.com
Logged
RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 26, 2010, 03:50:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
Now still yes, for the chinese. Let them taste the "joys" of confort, abundance and capitalism for a while and they won't.
Remember the Roman empire? It just happened that way.
After a great empire, starting decadence. When the Barbarians came, they were not preapared any more. They just did not want to.

Now you are right, I should have say "nobody would follow that" talking about our occidental nations, but for others, they would. Because they do not have yet the same level of confort. But for us, it is another story IMO.

Fred.

Fred, But there are always the "uncomfortable ones" in the world, and they're always the ones who raise their children to be warriors. Your example of the Romans is right on the mark. Any nation that gets so "comfortable" that it's not "prepared" can expect at some point to descend into dissolution. Let's hope it's not "us," though someday it will be. The only reason the western world has been able to have "comfort" since WW II is because the United States has been willing to spend its blood and treasure to defend that "comfort." If the U.S. gets too comfortable it will have a lot of company on the road to dissolution.

Since the U.S. still is willing to defend them, the biggest problem for most free nations at the moment isn't their lack of military capability, though that's problem enough. The biggest problem is their fertility rate. The U.S. is about the only free nation in the world whose fertility rate is at or slightly above replacement. Populations of the rest of the free world are shrinking and growing older. That's not a condition that forecasts longevity for those nations, especially when you consider that the "uncomfortable" nations' fertility rate is enormous. If you think I'm exaggerating check the average age of citizens of the Arab nations in the Middle East, and then check the average age of Spanish citizens.

Ive suggested that the U.S. help solve this problem by sending our army to impregnate all nubile European women, but that idea seems to have run into some political resistance, even though I'm quite sure we could do the whole job with volunteers. Ah well, I'm not a politician,.
Logged

RSL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6067



WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 26, 2010, 03:55:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
He lived in Iraq from 2002-2008.  He doesn't seem like a quack at all.

http://www.ashleygilbertson.com

Okay, I'll agree that he wasn't a quack until he went to work for the NYT. I also remember when David Brooks was a reasonable, intelligent columnist. Then he went to work for the NYT. There's something about that environment that seems to corrode ones brain.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #57 on: March 26, 2010, 04:04:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Actually, seems to me we were asked. At least that's what Churchill seems to indicate. Three questions: (1) Does the free world need a policeman? (2) If so, since WW II, who, other than the U.S. has had the ability to be the world's policeman? (3) Without a world policeman, what would the world look like?

Regarding the second part of your paragraph, I certainly agree. I'd be happy to see an acknowledged dictator in parts of Palestine. "Democracy" didn't work out so well for those folks. Of course, if you look back at history you find that democracy" rarely does work out well. That's why the U.S. has a republic. So far that's worked fairly well, but underneath the republic is a democracy full of people who've discovered that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. Mr. Tytler has educated us about the inevitable outcome of that problem.



1.  Okay, you most certainly were asked during the years of WW2, but I am referring to more recent 'adventures' into the middle east where the justification is hard to see. Nobody invited either the US or the UK into Iraq; it had nothing to do with 9/11 which had everything to do with the totally biased positive position held towards the Palestinans' neighbour for reasons that, I suppose, are reflected in the power makeup of the US and, I guess, the rest of the international money business. You can mess around with the definitions as much as you like, but the truth is that if you constantly back one side against the other, the other is going to start seeing you as simply another part of the original enemy, which is exactly what happened, and the UK allowed itself to be suckered in too. I don't think all those other western governments were just being cowardly, and as has been pointed out many times, Afghanistan and Mexico would lose their drug incomes overnight if the 'civilized' world took the domestic drug industry seriously and broke a few skulls back home. Now that would be a domestic fight worth fighting! It will not happen.

2.  Nobody.

3.  Well, the far east would look much the same - the US lost in Vietnam despite massive power and North Korea is still truckin' as before, with a southern boat sunk as I write, with or without northern help. Further south in the direction of Australia the Moslem population is the largest in the world and nobody is going to mess with that! The eastern European/Balkan nations have always been in turmoil and neither NATO, the UN nor any credible EEC alternative seems to be capable of pleasing all of the combatants all of the time. Turkey is playing footsie with the west because it hopes to get into the EEC which, in turn, is terrified to let it in in case that opens the floodgates to the entire middle east cutting across the borders too via a Turkish doorway, yet fears sayin 'no' in case military access to Iraq is then denied. The USSR reputedly fell apart from within because it couldn't finance the military any longer - check echoes of the state of the UK today! - China is rapidly turning into the new America and I would seriously question it has any desire to suicide any time soon! The middle east would be the mess it always has been, or perhaps it might have resolved itself on the basis of regional power which, of course, isn't the equation today because one party has the might of America at its beck and call.

By the way, I think that these bits of thread are what make LuLa such an exceptionally valuable proposition: there is so much more here than just friggin' cameras and pixels and most of us are able to express an opinion reasonably politely!

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #58 on: March 26, 2010, 04:07:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RSL
Ive suggested that the U.S. help solve this problem by sending our army to impregnate all nubile European women, but that idea seems to have run into some political resistance, even though I'm quite sure we could do the whole job with volunteers. Ah well, I'm not a politician,.


I don't know, Russ, you had a damn good stab at it during and after WW2 and I understand that a lot of new ethnic communities were created in the States after Korea and Vietnam... Non?

Rob C
Logged

Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #59 on: March 26, 2010, 04:15:06 PM »
ReplyReply

... changed my mind ...
« Last Edit: March 26, 2010, 04:16:51 PM by Jeremy Payne » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad